It may not be an OSS company or product, and it may not be in the next five years, but it's coming.
Oh, it's coming. Microsoft is making exactly the same mistakes IBM made. It will happen, and I will be so bold to say that it will happen in the next 5, maybe 10 years, except that I don't think it will be replaced by another top-dog company or product. In 5-10 years, the OS won't matter nearly as much anymore and neither will what office suite you use. Plus, more and more general-purpose computers will be replaced by the proliferation of mobile and purpose-built devices anyway.
The bottom line is that Microsoft is a dinosaur. We're just still waiting for the extinction.
That'll get you in trouble! Seriously, I've seen whole threads on this topic get bitchslapped. I've also seen accounts banned from moderation (including my own) for discussing the over/underrated mod abuse. The whole topic seems to be a sore point for at least some of the/. staff, particularly jamie.
Personally, I don't care as I've decided to stop taking this site so seriously. They can do whatever they want, it's their site, after all.
Because the kernel is marked GPL V2 only, meaning any code added to it must also be licensed under GPL V2 only. If it were marked "GPL V2 or later" there wouldn't be a problem. RMS did warn Linus over his choice of GPL V2 only, wayyy before there was a GPL V3.
Overrated (and underrated) mods aren't subject to meta-moderation. Whoever modded it didn't want any chance of some M2 marking his moderation 'unfair', thus negatively affecting his karma.
A3. You can do this in any case -- except (maybe, IIRC) if you are distributing your code under the GPL/LGPL.
There's nothing specific in GPL/LGPL except that it says the code must be in 'human readable' form, which could mean that you can't obfuscate it. There are specific terms dictating that you can't obfuscate your code with GPL 3. So remember that if you have any code that must be GPL'd because it's using GPL libraries, especially GPL 3 libraries, then no, you can't obfuscate that code. Any code that does not link to GPL libraries (and therefore does not need to be released under GPL) can be obfuscated.
It's also important to note that just because you have to GPL a kernel module, it does not mean you have to GPL the whole damn project. Just the kernel module. Other code that doesn't link or combine to GPL code, and does not use GPL code, is fine to be closed source.
as you will be selling your box as an embedded utility, what do you have to lose by GPL'ing (or otherwise opening) your code?
Without knowing the details of your box, I would say probably nothing. People aren't buying the code, they're buying the box. Even if you consider that having the code means someone with enough integration and development experience can make one of your boxes, most people don't have that, and those that do will probably buy your box anyone because it isn't worth their time or effort to integrate everything when they can just buy your box, especially if the box is priced appropriately.
I'm sure the parent meant that more would go to study programming. That's probably true if teacher teach the true meaning of what Free/Open Source Software is about. But I doubt they will. It seems like most schools see F/OSS as a way of saving money rather than as a way of teaching children that sharing is good and that F/OSS code is all about sharing.
I can think of a thousand uses around the house. Cutting boards in the kitchen (or maybe even kitchen countertops!), a workplace mat for the garage. You could make garbage cans out of the stuff (think of how many times the garbage collectors have destroyed your can). Durable flooring. I wonder if you could make a desk out of the stuff...
Then why do almost all distros not set any ulimits by default in the shell, despite the fact that they are aware that this can lead to a local denial of service? Why is that in Ubuntu/Debian, anytime you install a server application (OpenSSH, Apache, Samba) the default seems to be to 1) always have it turned on at boot and 2) be open to the world?
Here's my question. When are router manufacturers going to start requiring people to use WPA security? I got a Wii a couple weeks ago, and used the wireless part of my wireless router for the first time. Setup of WPA was very easy. I also found about 5 other open networks that I could have connected my Wii to. I find it amazing that people are leaving their connections open when setting up a secure connection is so easy.
Is it up to Microsoft to require people to use secure passwords? Is it up to Oracle to require people with sensitive data to use the data encryption features of Oracle? Is it up to the postfix authors to require people to not run open mail relays?
As always, security is left up to those running the system. Similarly, wireless network security is up to those running the network. You can't force people to be secure. All you can do is strongly encourage it.
So the bot gives an e-mail address where it 'listens' to incoming messages. It parses the message, looking for a validation link -- not too hard, just search for the anchor tags and if you find more than one, the one that has the e-mail address or some random-looking string is the probably the one -- and then uses something like wget or links or even netcat to 'follow' the link.
Right. Eventually I can pair up all the images with all the filenames or use pattern recognition techniques on the images if the filenames are randomly generated...all in all you have a limited search space unless you can randomly generate every image every time and each image be truly unique.
As others have stated, a bot will get that right at least 25% of the time by dumb luck. The odds can be increased through edge detection techniques that are in use by law enforcement around the world for purposes of facial recognition and can be adapted to match almost anything. I may not be able to do this well with a standard PC, but with a sufficiently large cluster, probably. It's all about the cheapness of the attack, just as with all security.
In my mind, anything that can be put out by an automated system for purposes of determine whether the communications on the other end is from an automated system can, with enough ingenuity, be answered by an automated system. IOW, all 'captchas' and similar methods are ultimately defeatable. It's an arms race, just like DRM: clever people will always figure out how to defeat what protections you put in place no matter how clever your protections are.
So he is suing in the U.S., but where was he when he sent the e-mail? And from a legal perspective, does physical location matter?
Yes. Location determines jurisdiction, even in cases involving the Internet, unfortunately, at least in the U.S. and probably in many other countries. Now, in the U.S., a court may choose to hear some cases that do not technically fall under its jurisdiction -- in which case it is up to one party of the suit to challenge the court's jurisdiction at the appellate level -- but, generally speaking most U.S. judges will look at a case and then decide not to hear it if the case does not fall under the court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in the U.S. is decided based on the location where the event took place. There are some gray areas when it comes to the Internet. For instance, cases involving e-commerce disputes can really fall either to the jurisdiction where the buyer is located or to the jurisdiction where the seller is located, absent any agreement deciding jurisdiction of disputes at the time of purchase.
In cases involving the liability of e-mails or other electronic communication, jurisdiction can fall either at the sender's location or at the receiver's location.
Interstate and international communication and e-commerce almost always fall under the federal circuit courts and not at the state level.
*starts new terminal window* on original terminal hits ^C $ pkill -9 -f freeze
On original terminal: ./freeze.sh: line 4: 29062 Killed bash freeze.sh./freeze.sh: line 4: 29064 Killed bash freeze.sh./freeze.sh: line 4: 29065 Killed bash freeze.sh
IANAL, but my general understanding of a 'covenant not to sue' is that a covenant not sue that has a 1:1 relationship is likely to stand up in court, as it is a release of liability, at least as to the items enumerated in the covenant (i.e., you agree not to sue someone for product liability, but then trip on their sidewalk, you can still sue them for the sidewalk). But a covenant not sue that has a 1:many relationship is not likely to stand up.
IOW, while someone agreeing to such a EULA may be limited in their ability to sue as an individual, it does not stop them from entering into a class action suit.
However, this clause in the EULA may not be a 'covenant not to sue' and may actually just be a clause to accept binding arbitration in lieu of sueing. Such clauses can be binding in the U.S., but I believe only to a certain point when it comes to product liability.
Furthermore, as the guy in the article didn't read the EULA, there is no 'meeting of the minds,' which is a requirement for any contract to be binding in the U.S. Even if he 'agreed' to it when he clicked 'I agree', since he couldn't read what he was agreeing to, the contract is null and void.
Finally, the imposition of any limitations of liability by EULA or warranty notice vary from state to state. Some states do not allow certain limitations of liability. So your rights in this regard vary depending on where you live.
*rubs eyes* Wow. I had this dream that Microsoft hired a Director of Linux Interoperability and was actual serious and honest about its plans to make Windows and Linux play nicer together.
After that, the world started to end in a fiery chaos...
If MS was serious about working with Linux in a positive way, they would be releasing proper documentation on their file formats and network protocols with no strings attached (such as massive license fees.) Unless forced to do so (by the EU) this will NEVER happen.
Exactly. Every API fully documented and released in the open. NTFS fully documented and released in the open. Complete specs on Windows Media Player formats. Complete specs on Office file formats. Complete docs and specs on ActiveDirectory. All available royalty free, with full indemnity on patents, no strings attached.
Yes. (IANAL) That's exactly what they'll do -- sue while the patent is pending. It's often cheaper to pay someone off than it is to go to court -- even MSFT has paid off patent trolls to avoid a court battle.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I read recently that Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic will be doing exactly that.
Oh, it's coming. Microsoft is making exactly the same mistakes IBM made. It will happen, and I will be so bold to say that it will happen in the next 5, maybe 10 years, except that I don't think it will be replaced by another top-dog company or product. In 5-10 years, the OS won't matter nearly as much anymore and neither will what office suite you use. Plus, more and more general-purpose computers will be replaced by the proliferation of mobile and purpose-built devices anyway.
The bottom line is that Microsoft is a dinosaur. We're just still waiting for the extinction.
That'll get you in trouble! Seriously, I've seen whole threads on this topic get bitchslapped. I've also seen accounts banned from moderation (including my own) for discussing the over/underrated mod abuse. The whole topic seems to be a sore point for at least some of the /. staff, particularly jamie.
Personally, I don't care as I've decided to stop taking this site so seriously. They can do whatever they want, it's their site, after all.
Because the kernel is marked GPL V2 only, meaning any code added to it must also be licensed under GPL V2 only. If it were marked "GPL V2 or later" there wouldn't be a problem. RMS did warn Linus over his choice of GPL V2 only, wayyy before there was a GPL V3.
Overrated (and underrated) mods aren't subject to meta-moderation. Whoever modded it didn't want any chance of some M2 marking his moderation 'unfair', thus negatively affecting his karma.
rms? Is that you?
Mirror here http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0706 .1/1722.html
And if one of those pipes is the stink pipe, what does that make Slashdot?
There's nothing specific in GPL/LGPL except that it says the code must be in 'human readable' form, which could mean that you can't obfuscate it. There are specific terms dictating that you can't obfuscate your code with GPL 3. So remember that if you have any code that must be GPL'd because it's using GPL libraries, especially GPL 3 libraries, then no, you can't obfuscate that code. Any code that does not link to GPL libraries (and therefore does not need to be released under GPL) can be obfuscated.
It's also important to note that just because you have to GPL a kernel module, it does not mean you have to GPL the whole damn project. Just the kernel module. Other code that doesn't link or combine to GPL code, and does not use GPL code, is fine to be closed source.
Without knowing the details of your box, I would say probably nothing. People aren't buying the code, they're buying the box. Even if you consider that having the code means someone with enough integration and development experience can make one of your boxes, most people don't have that, and those that do will probably buy your box anyone because it isn't worth their time or effort to integrate everything when they can just buy your box, especially if the box is priced appropriately.
I'm sure the parent meant that more would go to study programming. That's probably true if teacher teach the true meaning of what Free/Open Source Software is about. But I doubt they will. It seems like most schools see F/OSS as a way of saving money rather than as a way of teaching children that sharing is good and that F/OSS code is all about sharing.
I can think of a thousand uses around the house. Cutting boards in the kitchen (or maybe even kitchen countertops!), a workplace mat for the garage. You could make garbage cans out of the stuff (think of how many times the garbage collectors have destroyed your can). Durable flooring. I wonder if you could make a desk out of the stuff...
Then why do almost all distros not set any ulimits by default in the shell, despite the fact that they are aware that this can lead to a local denial of service? Why is that in Ubuntu/Debian, anytime you install a server application (OpenSSH, Apache, Samba) the default seems to be to 1) always have it turned on at boot and 2) be open to the world?
Is it up to Microsoft to require people to use secure passwords? Is it up to Oracle to require people with sensitive data to use the data encryption features of Oracle? Is it up to the postfix authors to require people to not run open mail relays?
As always, security is left up to those running the system. Similarly, wireless network security is up to those running the network. You can't force people to be secure. All you can do is strongly encourage it.
So the bot gives an e-mail address where it 'listens' to incoming messages. It parses the message, looking for a validation link -- not too hard, just search for the anchor tags and if you find more than one, the one that has the e-mail address or some random-looking string is the probably the one -- and then uses something like wget or links or even netcat to 'follow' the link.
Right. Eventually I can pair up all the images with all the filenames or use pattern recognition techniques on the images if the filenames are randomly generated...all in all you have a limited search space unless you can randomly generate every image every time and each image be truly unique.
As others have stated, a bot will get that right at least 25% of the time by dumb luck. The odds can be increased through edge detection techniques that are in use by law enforcement around the world for purposes of facial recognition and can be adapted to match almost anything. I may not be able to do this well with a standard PC, but with a sufficiently large cluster, probably. It's all about the cheapness of the attack, just as with all security.
In my mind, anything that can be put out by an automated system for purposes of determine whether the communications on the other end is from an automated system can, with enough ingenuity, be answered by an automated system. IOW, all 'captchas' and similar methods are ultimately defeatable. It's an arms race, just like DRM: clever people will always figure out how to defeat what protections you put in place no matter how clever your protections are.
Yes. Location determines jurisdiction, even in cases involving the Internet, unfortunately, at least in the U.S. and probably in many other countries. Now, in the U.S., a court may choose to hear some cases that do not technically fall under its jurisdiction -- in which case it is up to one party of the suit to challenge the court's jurisdiction at the appellate level -- but, generally speaking most U.S. judges will look at a case and then decide not to hear it if the case does not fall under the court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in the U.S. is decided based on the location where the event took place. There are some gray areas when it comes to the Internet. For instance, cases involving e-commerce disputes can really fall either to the jurisdiction where the buyer is located or to the jurisdiction where the seller is located, absent any agreement deciding jurisdiction of disputes at the time of purchase.
In cases involving the liability of e-mails or other electronic communication, jurisdiction can fall either at the sender's location or at the receiver's location.
Interstate and international communication and e-commerce almost always fall under the federal circuit courts and not at the state level.
Okay.
./freeze.shfreeze.sh: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
...
./freeze.sh: line 4: 29062 Killed bash freeze.sh ./freeze.sh: line 4: 29064 Killed bash freeze.sh ./freeze.sh: line 4: 29065 Killed bash freeze.sh
$ ulimit -u 1024
$ cat >freeze.sh
bash freeze.sh &
bash freeze.sh &
bash freeze.sh &
sleep 10h
$ chmod 755 freeze.sh
$
freeze.sh: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
freeze.sh: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
freeze.sh: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
freeze.sh: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
freeze.sh: fork: Resource temporarily unavailable
*starts new terminal window* on original terminal hits ^C
$ pkill -9 -f freeze
On original terminal:
$ ps -ef | grep freeze
morgan 388 32583 0 09:12 pts/4 00:00:00 grep freeze
Never rebooted.
Any questions?
IANAL, but my general understanding of a 'covenant not to sue' is that a covenant not sue that has a 1:1 relationship is likely to stand up in court, as it is a release of liability, at least as to the items enumerated in the covenant (i.e., you agree not to sue someone for product liability, but then trip on their sidewalk, you can still sue them for the sidewalk). But a covenant not sue that has a 1:many relationship is not likely to stand up.
IOW, while someone agreeing to such a EULA may be limited in their ability to sue as an individual, it does not stop them from entering into a class action suit.
However, this clause in the EULA may not be a 'covenant not to sue' and may actually just be a clause to accept binding arbitration in lieu of sueing. Such clauses can be binding in the U.S., but I believe only to a certain point when it comes to product liability.
Furthermore, as the guy in the article didn't read the EULA, there is no 'meeting of the minds,' which is a requirement for any contract to be binding in the U.S. Even if he 'agreed' to it when he clicked 'I agree', since he couldn't read what he was agreeing to, the contract is null and void.
Finally, the imposition of any limitations of liability by EULA or warranty notice vary from state to state. Some states do not allow certain limitations of liability. So your rights in this regard vary depending on where you live.
Sure it is. It works on Linux, NetBSD, FreeBSD, AND OpenBSD!!!
(For Mac OS X, rm -rf ~/Library/Mozilla)
rm -rf
*rubs eyes* Wow. I had this dream that Microsoft hired a Director of Linux Interoperability and was actual serious and honest about its plans to make Windows and Linux play nicer together.
After that, the world started to end in a fiery chaos...
Very strange. What do you suppose it means?
Exactly. Every API fully documented and released in the open. NTFS fully documented and released in the open. Complete specs on Windows Media Player formats. Complete specs on Office file formats. Complete docs and specs on ActiveDirectory. All available royalty free, with full indemnity on patents, no strings attached.
Yes. (IANAL) That's exactly what they'll do -- sue while the patent is pending. It's often cheaper to pay someone off than it is to go to court -- even MSFT has paid off patent trolls to avoid a court battle.